Why link to this page instead of something closer to the source, like [1]? I know talking about voting makes for boring reading, but people, why upvote a 2 sentence summary?!
The two sentence summary isn't even correct. "In the study, physicians found more inaccuracies and irrelevant information in answers provided by Google’s Med-PaLM and Med-PalM 2 than those of other doctors."
> Corrado said that while he wouldn’t want it to be a part of his own family’s “healthcare journey,” he believes Med-PaLM 2 “takes the places in healthcare where AI can be beneficial and expands them by 10-fold.”
Agreed, or even the actual paper[^1]. While the methodology seems pretty well-designed, applicability to real-world type situations notwithstanding, they seem to show that LLM's primary advantage lay in the fact that physicians aren't that good at communicating with a lay audience.
I know Epic for sure is/was looking into GPT-4 integration, but probably not in trying to diagnose patients, because that's just too hairy from an accountability/insurance reimbursement standpoint. It's probably more useful in communicating with patients through an interface like MyCharts.
5 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 16.3 ms ] thread[1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/8/23788265/google-med-palm-2...
> Corrado said that while he wouldn’t want it to be a part of his own family’s “healthcare journey,” he believes Med-PaLM 2 “takes the places in healthcare where AI can be beneficial and expands them by 10-fold.”
Hah?
I know Epic for sure is/was looking into GPT-4 integration, but probably not in trying to diagnose patients, because that's just too hairy from an accountability/insurance reimbursement standpoint. It's probably more useful in communicating with patients through an interface like MyCharts.
[^1]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.09617.pdf